According to Wikipedia, in British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms.
However, the choice is not arbitrary.
British English selects (or rather, the usual practice in the UK is to select) the plural form when and only when the individual members of the team / staff / jury ... are intended or obviously referenced:
The team was founded in 1912. (singular concord mandatory)
The team were fighting amongst themselves. (plural concord mandatory)
The jury was composed of three men and nine women.
The jury were unable to agree on the verdict.
Obviously, jury equates to members of the jury in the second case here, and is an elision.
England were beaten 2-1 by Poland.
we have the additional complicating factor of metonymy or arguably synecdoche - England stands for the England team, and takes plural concord (Australians and Americans would probably still use singular concord to fit with the singular form of the noun as it appears).
The British convention is known for obvious reasons as 'logical concord'; it is also termed 'synesis'.
There is another point to consider - I think many of us have come across a list of collective nouns at school, including quite a few esoteric ones:
a herd of cows
a colony of ants
a pride of lions
a murder of crows
a bike of ants
a dopping of sheldrake ...
But does one include group nouns such as staff, team, family, group amongst collective nouns, or is it a restricted term?